DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 078 677. EM 011 224

AUTHOR Neal, J. P.; Meller, D. V.TITLE Computer-Guided Experimentation-A New System for

Laboratory Instruction.INSTITUTION Illinois Univ., Urbana. Computer-Based Education

Lab.REPORT NO CERL-R-X-30PUB DATE Jul 71NOTE 25p.; Paper presented at Symposium on Applications of

Computers to Electrical Engineering Education(Lafayette, Indiana, April 27, 1971)

EDRS PRICE MF-S0.65 HC-$3.29-DESCRIPTORS College Students; *Computer Assisted Inw*, .ction;

*Computer Based Laboratories; Computers; '..ngineeringEducation; Experiments; Higher Education;Instructional Aids; *Laboratory Equipment;*Laboratory Procedures; Program Descriptions; ProgramEvaluation; Time Sharing

IDENTIFIERS *PLATO Computer Assisted Instructional System;University of Illinois

ABSTRACTThis paper reports the development, operation, and

initial performance evaluations of an electrical engineeringlaboratory station equipped for computer-guided experimentation(CGE). A practical evaluation of the actual instructional value oftwo programed lessons utilizing this new system for laboratoryinstruction-and experimentation is also included. The prototypelaboratory station fitted for CGE automatically feeds backinformation reporting a student's laboratory-activities (namely, hissettings of instrument dials and the interconnections he makesbetween the terminals of his experimentation equipment) to atime-shared computer assisted instructional (CAI) system, so that thestudent is guided automatically through a lesson in any mannerpreprogramed by an instructor. The expansion of these facilities iscontemplated when additional CAI stations become available as aresult of future expansions of the PLATO CAI system and theUniversity of Illinois. (Author/PB)

CERL REPORT X-30 JULY, 1971

COMPUTERGUIDEDEXPERIMENTATION -A NEW SYSTEM FORLABORATORY INSTRUCTIONJ. P. NEALD.V. MELLER

U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL-OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

Computerbased Education Research Laboratory

University of Illinois Urbana Illinois

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

COMPUTER-GUIDED EXPERIMENTATION -

A NEW SYSTEM FOR LABORATORY INSTRUCTION

J. P. Neal, senior member, IEEE, and D. V. Meller

Abstract - This paper reports the development, operation, and initial

performance evaluations of-an EE laboratory station equipped for Computer-

Guided Experimentation. A practical evaluation of the actual instructional

value of two programmed lessons utilizing this new system for laboratory

instruction and experimentation is also included in this paper.

The prototype laboratory station equipped for Computer-Guided Experi-

mentation will automatically feedback information reporting a student's labora-

tory activities .(namely, his settings of instrument dials and the interconnections

he makes between the terminals of his experimentation equipment) to a time-

shared computer-aided instructional system, so that the student can be guided

automatically through a lesson in any manner preprogrammed by an instructor.

It is contemplated that these facilities will be expanded to a number of

laboratory stations when more CAI stations become available as a result of

future expansions in the PLATO computer-based educational facilities at Urbana.

This paper was presented on April 27, 1971, at the Purdue 1971

Symposium on Applications of Computers to Electrical Engineering Education,

Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.

The authors are teacher and undergraduate student, respectively, in the

Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering,. University of Illinois,

Urbana, Illinois 61801.

2

INTRODUCTION

Terminology

Programmed Instruction (PI)[I] is a general term encompassing

various organized presentations of instructional material that apply modern

learning concepts and provide a procedure by which any individual student

can proceed independently and efficiently at his own pace toward the achieve-

ment of preselected learning objectives. Programmed texts [2] are one of

the methods most widely used at this time for presenting programmed instruction.

Computer-Aided Instruction (CAI) systems present programmed

instruction with greater flexibility and sophistication than can be achieved

in a printed text. A student work-station or terminal of the PLATO computer-

aided instructional system [3] at the University of Illinois in Urbana con-

sists of a television screen and a keyset linked electrically to a time-shared

high-speed computer. The presentation of programmed instruction to a

student at an experimentation station in the laboratory requires a closer

interaction between a CAI system and the experimentation equipment than is

achieved by simply installing a student's CAI terminal at the student's experi-

mentation station in the laboratory. .This assertion is justified by comparing

the CAI terminal to a blindfolded instructor.

Any experienced instructor of an introductory laboratory course will

appreciate the frustration he would feel if he was blindfolded while trying to

help an inexperienced student locate an error in his equipment arrangement

or measurement techniques. He (the blindfolded instructor) would have to

depend on a dialogue with the student while searching for the error. Such

3

frustration would arise when the student persisted in misreading dial

positions, misunderstanding circuit connections, or otherwise misinter-

preting some other characteristic of the physical system. A CAI system

would be similarly frustrated in guiding a student through a programmed

instructional sequence, if the CAI system had to depend on a dialogue con-

ducted with the student at a CAI terminal for the purpose of gaining accurate

information describing the physical setup baffling the student.

Reliable automatic guidance can be provided in the laboratory at a

student's experimentation station by a CAI system if an electrical logic

system or interface between the CAI terminal and the student's experimen-

tation equipment can report reliable information about the student's actual

experimental setup whenever the CAI system is programmed to request it.

A laboratory station at which the student's experimentation equipment and

an adjacent CAI terminal is electrically interfaced in this manner is called

a Computer-Guided Experimentation station [4]. The word guided is used

to emphasize that true automatic guidance principles apply since the program

is controlled by information fedback automatically and independently of the

dialogue with the student.

The term experimentation is used here with a broad meaning, referring

to any exploration of physical reality at any level of complexity. As a student

acquires manual and intellectual skills, he becomes capable of accomplishing

higher levels of experimentation [5] ranging initially from familiarization

with instruments to the performance of sophisticated experiments of his own

creation.

4

...

In a similar broad sense, the term lesson is used to refer to any pro-

grammed experiment. Various ambiguous terms such as, exercise, test,

demonstration, etc. will not be used to distinguish explorations of various

levels of complexity. Hence, a lesson may cover a simple exploration of

the external features of an instrument, or it may cover a sophisticated

experiment.

Background

Printed programmed instructions for laboratory exercises to permit

students to familiarize themselves with laboratory instruments or demon-

strate for themselves basic phenomena being studied in theory courses have

been used for a number of years [5]. Rack-mounted EE laboratory equipment

of the type illustrated in Figure 1 was originally acquired here at the University

of Illinois at Urbana for use with such programmed instruction.

During the academic year 1968-69, programmed exercises [6] were

used as the scheduled experiments in our introductory electrical engineering

laboratory course. Generally, the student reaction to using these exercises

as scheduled experiments was unfavorable. In order to direct the students

to perform a specific task or demonstrate a specific phenomena, each exercise

stated every circuit connection, dial setting, reading, and calculation the

student should make. Consequently, the completion of an exercise was not a

thought-provoking task and, in many cases, the exercises aroused little interest

or learning.

During 1968, it became apparent that more interest and learning could

be stimulated if students were given specific objectives, broader directions,

6

T

5

and greater freedom of action. However, introductory experiments presented.---,

in this manner would require closer instructor guidance to prevent misinter-

pretation or hopeless confusion. Programmed texts requiring conscious

choices of actions and alternate routes could be prepared, but their use in a

laboratory becomes cumbersome. Furthermore, if a student unintentionally

adjusted or connected equipment incorrectly, the programmed instructions

could also lead to misinterpretations or hopeless confusion and instructor

assistance would still be necessary before he could proceed with the laboratory

lesson. As a consequence of these experiences, no effort has been made at

Urbana to develop printed programmed texts for the introductory EE labora-

tory course taken by about 250 sophomore EE students per year. Nevertheless,

we continue to use a printed programmed exercise covering the operation of

an oscilloscope for the initial experiment in that course.

CURRENT RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Thoughtful consideration of the above experiences led to the initiation

of two teaching research projects in 1968. The first project had the objective

of improving the lecture-discussion periods associated with the introductory

laboratory course by involving all laboratory instructors in the lecture-dis-

cussions and stimulating the interest and participation of students during these

presentations. The results of this project have been reported elsewhere [7, 81.

The second project covers Computer-Guided Experimentation. Progress on

this project is reported in this paper.

Research on Computer-Guided Experimentation has the objective of

developing and testing a method for automatically guiding a student's laboratory

I

I

I

6

experimentation by means of computer-aided instruction automatically

modified according to electrically fedback reports of the students' actual

laboratory activities, such as his adjustments of dials and switches, and

the connections he makes between the terminals of electronic laboratory

equipment. Time-shared computer-aided instruction, like that available

through PLATO [3 ] at Urbana, seemed worthwhile because a library of

introductory lessons or experiments of various levels of difficulty could

provide a wide range of choice to beginning students and give them the

freedom to experimentally explore equipment and systems of immediate

interest, rather than forcing all students to follow an identical schedule

that could bore some of them and swamp others. Automatic direct sensing

of each student's actual terminal interconnections and instrument dial

adjustments seemed necessary, rather than relying on student's reports

of such activities, so that appropriate programmed guidance could be reliably

selected and activated whenever a student became too frustrated from progress

towards his selected experimental objective.

Each lesson or experiment is developed, programmed, stored on the

computer, and tested for its effectiveness. Automatic guidance is selected,

structured, and activated during any lesson at any time and in any manner

provided in the instructor's programming of that lesson.

The future possibilities of a reliable system of Computer-Guided

Experimentation are wider than the impression conveyed by the above dis-

cussion. It seems reasonable to expect that a computer program can be

prepared that will permit a student to devise and plan an original experiment,

I

I

I

1

I

1

7

receive a variety of automatically programmed guidances, such as, sug-

gestions for various avenues of exploration, warnings of connections between

terminals or dial adjustments that do not conform to his stated plan, or

warnings of dangerous mishandling of the laboratory equipment.

8

PRESENT COMPUTER-GUIDED EXPERIMENTATION EQUIPMENT

One prototype Computer-Guided Experimentation (CGE) station for

student use was placed in operation in the Computer-based Education Research

Laboratory (CERL) at Urbana in October 1970. This CGE station consists

of electronic experimentation equipment and a student terminal of the PLATO

time-shared computer-aided instructional system mounted side by side on

a large laboratory table, approximately as shown in Figure 2. The rack-

mounted electronic equipment consists of a dual-trace wide-band oscilloscope,

a square,- triangle, ramp, or sine wave voltage generator, a more powerful

sine wave voltage generator, a constant current-voltage supply, and a vacuum

tube voltmeter. A general-purpose circuit board and various alternate printed

circuit boards are equipped with automatic terminal sensing connections cabled

to connectors that can be plugged-in at the front of the equipment panel. The

present PLATO station equipment consists of a portable television set and a cable-

connected table-top keyset.

The rack-mounted instruments are standard commercial items that we

have modified internally to provide signal outputs reporting dial positions

and terminal interconnections. We originally contemplated installing binary

wafers on each dial or knob shaft so that a binary number output would sig-

nal the position of that shaft. The multiplicity of wires required to report

each binary number (five wires for a five digit binary number) discouraged

this idea. We have installed a potentiometer on each manually-adjustable

shaft. With this method, a voltage to ground transmitted by a single wire

9

provides a signal reporting the position of the associated shaft. Whenever

directed to do so by a lesson program, a programmed electrical logic

system sequentially selects a wire from each shaft potentiometer and reports

to PLATO the associated dial or knob pogition by means of the binary number

output of a single analog-digital converter. This system for automatically

zeporting the positions of the 22 adjustable dials and knobs of the electronic

experimentation equipment is called the "Dial Checker."

Each electrical terminal on the electronic equipment and on whatever

circuit board is in use is also connected through a sensing wire to the electrical

logic system. Whenever directed to do so by a lesson program, the logic

system serving as the electrical interface between the electronic station

equipment and PLATO automatically disconnects any electrical power sup-

plied to the experimentation circuit and then senses and reports to PLATO

every interconnection between the electrical terminals. This system for

automatically reporting all the interconnections between the 30 accessible

electrical terminals on the experimentation equipment is called the "Connection

Checker."

As indicated above, the station logic system operates under the control

of any programmed lesson as shown schematically in Figure 3 and is available

at any time during a lesson. The students' keyset is deactivated while any

dial or terminal check is in progress, and the outputs of the logic system

are reported to the time-shared computer-aided instructional system like

normal binary number inputs of the student keyset. The data output rates

of the present logic system are: for the Dial Checker - 22 dial positions

OM

10

(22 characters) in less than 2 seconds; for the Connection Checker - 30 terminal

interconnections (150 characters) in less than 8 seconds.

The hardware and software for the Dial and Connection Checkers for

the prototype CGE station were designed and constructed by 12 graduate and

undergraduate EE students working on a part-time basis. The operation of

this system is not infallible, so two students are continuing the effort to

improve the construction and operation of this system. They are gaining

valuable experience with analog and digital systems during this work, and

are progressing satisfactorily.

The operation of- the Checkers has been sufficiently reliable to enable

us to test a few lessons. Prior to this spring, ten undergraduate EE students

have participated in this educational research by studying the design and

preparation of suitable lessons. During this Spring Semester, 7 students

are engaged in designing introductory experiments, programming a number

of introductory Computer-Guided Experimentation lessons, and evaluating

their educational worth. A few beginning undergraduate EE students have

worked through our present lessons at the prototype CGE station.

11

COMPUTER-GUIDED EXPERIMENTATION LESSONS

The Development of CGE Lesson Topics

_Those of us involved with instruction in laboratory courses would like

to give the student freedom in the laboratory. What this seems to mean is

that we are willing to permit a student r -.-1 his own if he can use the

instruments and other laboratory equipment safely and properly, devise

meaningful experiments, and report his laboratory work accurately and

clearly. If a student cannot perform those tasks when he begins an intro-

ductory EE laboratory course, he certainly should be able to perform them

adequately when he completes the course.

How does someone learn to do these things ? How does he acquire the

necessary manual and intellectual abilities? Our experience indicates that..

persons familiar with using electronic instruments can learn to use a strange

complex electronic instrument more readily than a novice can learn to use

a strange simple electronic instrument. Why is this? We believe the task

is easier for the experienced person because he has learned manual and

intellectual skills and concepts that are transferable and can be applied to

the new instrument. For example, a "Range" knob may select the multiplier

which must be applied to scale indications, cr "Internal" versus "External"

may mean "self-driven" versus "externally driven." In one way or another,

a novice must spend some time and effort to learn the use of instruments.

We believe that a novice will learn the use of an instrument most readily by

being guided to learn explicitly the necessary concepts, and we have proceeded

on this premise.

i75-

12

We reviewed and redefined the purpose of the introductory electrical

engineering laboratory experiments for the purpose of distinguishing suitable

lesson goals and ordering the lesson goals within each type of equipment

area according to their levels of relative complexity. For example, the

sequence of lesson goals pertaining specifically to the series of lessons

devoted to experimental studies of the Function Generator were ordered as

follows:

Level 1 - The operation of the Function Generator.

Level 2 - The determination of the limits of the parameters of the various

outputs available from the Function Generator.

Level 3 - The determinations of equivalent network representations for

the Function Generator as viewed from its output terminals.

Level 4 - Function Generator experiments of greater complexity or

sophistication than those developed for the preceding levels.

Level 5 - Lesson programs that will permit a knowledgeable student to

report to the CAI system a definite plan for an original experiment

employing the Function Generator and thereafter be given

guidance automatically as he performs that experiment.

The Construction of CGE Lessons

Since 1968, members of our Computer-Guided Experimentation group have

been devising, programming, and testing lessons in experimentation. This

experience and our other studies of educational psychology, computer-aided

instruction, and instruction in laboratory courses, plus considerable help

from the literature [2, 9], have led us to define and order the following list

of steps as a guide for constructing a CGE lesson:

1. Identify the subject matter or topic of the lesson.

2. Determine and state the goal of the lesson concisely in behavioral form.

3. Determine the objectives of the lesson and state them in behavioral form.

Each objective is one of the mental or physical abilities that a student

must have or acquire to accomplish the lesson goal. This list of

behavior objectives is not intended to be exhaustive, nor is it presented

to the student as an exhaustive list of the thing:- he will be able to do

when he successfully completes the lesson. The list simply includes

the least things the student must be able to do to achieve the goal of

the lesson.

4. Perform a task analysis for each objective. A task analysis is a flow

chart relating whatever objective that is located at the apex to lower

or subordinate abilities that a student must have or acquire before he

can achieve the apex. Each task analysis should be extended downward

to whatever minimum level of abilities it is reasonable to assume win

be within the capabilities of all students.

5. Construct a test to measure the attainment of the objectives. If a

student can achieve each of the objectives, he should be competent to

achieve the goal of the lesson.

6. Prepare the instructional material for each display frame as necessary

to guide a student to acquire higher and higher levels of abilities until

he achieves each objective.

7. Within every frame or two, as material frames are prepared, construct

and incorporate a criterion test to verify that each new ability is

II,

[

I

14

properly acquired.

8. Design the feedback for both right and wrong answers to the criterion

tests and the objective tests and determine the proper frames to which

the student should be guided.

9. Test and improve the lesson and evaluate its instructional worth.

The steps listed above tend to shape the lesson into a sequence with

simple branches, and it is an easy and effective way to start the development4L- - ---.4

of any lesson. It is well to remember that any lesson is not a competent

educational tool until practically all of the students for whom it was

designed can complete the lesson satisfactorily and are inspired to continue

to higher levels of learning.

A Typical CGE Lesson

The Level-1 lesson numbered EEX10 on the Exact Model 250 Function

Generator is used in this section for the purpose of exemplifying the above-

listed steps for constructing a CGE lesson. The item numbers below coincide

with applicable step numbers in the above-listed lesson construction guide.

The Function Generator is mounted below the oscilloscope in the prototype

CGE station as illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

1. Topic of Lesson: The operation of an Exact Model 250 Function Generator,

Lesson EEX10.

2. Lesson Goal: After satisfactorily completing this lesson, a student

should be able to properly connect the Function Generator into an

experimental system as a 2-terminal source and drive the system with

a voltage having any specified waveshape and parameters within the

rated capacity of the Function Generator.

4

15

3. Lesson Objectives: "Within the inherent limitations of the Exact Model 250

Function Generator, you must be able to:

a) Turn the generator off and on.

b) Set the triggering system to the desired trigger mode.

c) Adjust the timing dials to the desired frequency.

d) Set the generator output to supply the desired wave shape.

e) Adjust the maximum and minimum voltages of the output to the desired

values."

4. See Figure 4 for a typical Task Analysis, namely, the Task Analysis for

Objective (a) of this lesson (EEX10).

5. One of three questions used as the test for the attainment of the objectives

in this lesson is:

"Set the dials on the generator to the positions where the output will be:

(1) Continuously on.

(2) 200Hz.

(3) Adjustable, triangle wave.

then press - NEXT -"

The student's answers (actual dial adjustments) are then graded auto-

matically by the Dial Checker and he is guided to proceed in the lesson

or learn something he missed.

11.

16

6. A display frame that was prepared for instruction under

objective (c) appears as follows:

"TIMING"

The present settings of the MULTIPLIER and

CYCLES /SEC dials define an output frequency

of about 6.2 x 102 Hz.

Using "m" MULTIPLIER setting

and "s" CYCLES/SEC setting,

complete the formula whereby you can predict

the output frequency, given any m and s.

f= I I

7. The last half of the example4n Step 6 above, is a criterion test.

It tests the student's understanding of the concept of prescribing

a numerical value by fixing the significant digits and a multiplier.

The computer was programmed to respond to the student's answers as

follows:

For a right answer: "That's it: "

For wrong answer: "I was looking form x s, i.e., the productof the two settings."

8. The feedback instructions covering the action to be taken on the

alternative answers to the criterion test quoted above in Step 7,

guide the CAI system to wait until the student inserts the correct

answer in the space provided in the frames displayed in Step 6 and

then displays the next frame.

1

I

I

I

I

i

I

1

17

9. This lesson on the Function Generator has been tested and revised

many times. A printout of this entire lesson is too lengthy to

be included in this paper.

Use of the "Dial Checker" in the Typical CGE Lesson

Wherever we needed to know the actual positions of the dials of the Function

Generator during a lesson, we simply inserted a computer subroutine that calls

the Dial Checker. Throughout the typical lesson discussed above, the Dial Checker

was used in three ways:

(1) To verify that the student set the dials to the positions required for the

demonstration of a specific phenomenon.

(2) To test whether the student could set the dials properly to produce a

specified output. This use is employed in the automatic grading mentioned

above in Step 5 where a question of an attainment test is exemplified.

(3) To present information calculated on the basis of the actual dial positions

as exemplified by the statement "6. 2 x 102 Hz. " in the frame illustrated

above in Step 6.

After a student is directed to set certain dial positions, the Dial Checker

automatically senses the new dial positions and feeds this information to the CAI

system. The CAI system compares this "actual" data to a preprogrammed set

of "correct" data and is usually programmed to display to the student the names

of those dials which are set incorrectly. If no dials are incorrectly set, then an

appropriate complimentary message may be displayed. When the given output

description and the error data are displayed simultaneously to a student, he can

easily correct the errors before he proceeds.

1

I

I

I

I

1

T

I

1

........

18

Current Results of CGE Lesson Research

The Level-1 CGE lesson on the Function Generator that was discussed in the

preceding section consisted of 17 display frames, including 3 frames devoted to a

final test. The lesson covered the Trigger, Timing, and Output divisions of the

Function Generator. Data records were collected for 8 students who completed

the test individually, at different times when the prototype CGE station was opera-

tive. Their average completion time for the lesson was 27 minutes (extremes were:

19 and 35 minutes). There were 9 student responses required in the instructional

portion of the lesson and 16 dial settings required in the final test in the lesson.

Of the 8 x 9 = 72 required student responses, there were 18 wrong responses.

12 of these wrong responses were replies to two poorly stated questions. Of

the 8 x 16 = 128 required dial settings, there were 11 wrong dial settings made

by the students.

A similar Level-1 CGE lesson on the HP 200 AB Audio Oscillator was

completed by 10 students in an average time of 13 minutes (extremes: 10 and

19 minutes). For these students there were 10 out of 50 wrong student responses

during the lesson and 8 out of 80 wrong dial settings during the final test.

All errors in lesson responses or dial settings in the final tests were cor-

rected by the students before they completed these instructional units. The

percentage of errors for these two CGE lessons may be tabulated as follows:

Function Generator Audio OscillatorLesson Errors

Final Test Errors

25% 20%

9% 10%

It will be interesting to learn the extent to which student performance during

the above lessons is improved when the one or two poorly stated frames in each of

the above lessons are modified.

19

CONCLUSIONS

We find certain circumstances very interesting. While taking the CC.E

lessons, the students unquestioningly accepted the computer's report of dials

that were set incorrectly. When the error message was displayed, the students

immediately began to analyze their setup and, without exception, corrected their

errors on the first attempt. All 18 of the students, who completed a lesson,

properly adjusted their particular instrument when they were given a verbal

description of a required output. Hopefully, these skills would be reinforced

and retained by having the students use e the instruments in subsequent CGE

lessons.

The student's attitudes and reactions while taking the CGE lessons seemed. .

very favorable. From both lessons, the most frequent student comments were:

"Some of the wording [ in the frames] was liard to understand"; and "PLATO

[ referring to the Computer-Guided Experimentation station] is helpful and the

-course [referring to our present introductory EE laboratory course] is a must

for EE students. It will be great if the two can be combined."

Our experience with the use of the Dial Checker in providing automatic

guidance in the CGE lessons has been so encouraging that we are finding new ways

to use this kind of information to enhance CGE lessons. We have barely begun to

understand how to use the wealth of information available from the Connection

Checker.

Within the near future, we plan to complete the programming of a CGE "lesson"

that will allow the student to establish the actual lesson presentation, rather than

simply presenting all instruction in the essentially sequential form used in present

tutorial or inquiry teaching strategies. This should eliminate the lock-step which

is inherent in tutorial sequencies and create an even more effective learning program.

Fig. ].

A View of the Introductory Electrical Engineering Laboratory.

TELE-VISIONSCREEN

OSCILLOSCOPE

FUNCTION GEN.

FRONT VIEW

RACKMOUNTEDEQUIPMENT

("1 --- GENERAL PURPOSE000000 CIRCUIT BOARD

I KEYSET I000 o oo0000 00

SCALE, 3/4".I'0"

TABLE-TOP VIEW

Fig. Z. The Prototype Computer - Guided Experimentation Station.

Programmed Lessonon

remote PLATO Time-shared Computer

Run*

InterfaceLogic System

EncodingTiming

A/D Conver.

Dials

Select&.,

DialChecker

>0

Connection>"Checker

TerminalsA

CGEInstruments

CircuitBoard

61

A

PLATODisplay

PLATOKeyset

Fig. 3. CGE Station Schematic Diagram.

TURN THEGENERATORON AND OFF

KNOW CONDITIONSFOR GEN. TO

BE ON1111E01

tLINE CORD

INTO ACTIVEOUTLET

IDENTIFYLINECORD

GOODFUSE

LOCATEFUSE

HOLDER

INDICATOR

LIGHT

SWITCHTO

"ON"

LOCATESWITCH

1Previouslyacquireskills

Fig. 4. Task Analysis for Objective (a) of Lesson EEX10.

REFERENCES

R. K. Moore, "Programmed Instruction - The Engineering of Education",IEEE - Education, E-6, Dec. 1963, pp. 60-64.

[ 2 1 N. Balabanian, "The Educational Engineering Called Programmed Instruc-tion", IEEE - Education, E-9, June 1966, pp. 49-57.

[ 3 ] D. Alpert and D. L. Bitzer, "Advances in Computer-based Education",Science, 167, 20 Mar 70, pp. 1582-1590,

[ 4 ] J. P. Neal, "The Self Teaching Electrical Engineering Laboratory (STEEL)Program for Computer-Guided Experimentation", Computer-OrientedElectrical Engineering Experiments 1969-70, Commission on Education,The National Academy of Engineering, p. 11.

[ 5 ] R.-M. Gagne, "Some New Views of Learning and Instruction", IEEE -Education, E-14, Feb. 1971, pp. 26-31.

[ 6 ] J. O. Kopplin, E. W. Ernst, and E. C. Jones Jr., "Programmed Experi-mental Teaching Exercises", IEEE - Education, E-6, Dec. 1963,pp, 71-75.

[ 7 ] J. P. Neal, "Nurturing Creativity in a Measurements Course, "Proceed-ings of the 24th Annual ISA Conference, Houston, Texas, 28 Oct 69,paper number 603.

[ 8 ] J. P. Neal, "Cooperative Instruction in a Multisection Laboratory Course",IEEE - Education, E-13, July 1970, pp, 9-10.

[ 9 ] R. F. Mager, "Preparing Instructional Objectives", Fearon Publishers,Palo Alto, California, 1962.